Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> On 2007-10-24 20:15:24 -0700, Eric Hodel wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 20:08 , Brian Sammon wrote:
>>>>> That seems like an odd switch name then. I vote for '--ask-
>>>>> dependencies'
>>>>> instead. I would tuit '--ignore-dependencies' to mean 'just install
>>>>> the
>>>>> damn thing, don't try to grab the dependencies at all'.
>>>> It means the latter. It will never ask before installing
>>>> dependencies anymore.
>>> Will the --ignore-dependencies option at least tell you what
>>> dependencies you
>>> have just ignored?
>> `gem dep` will tell you that.
>>>>> I would like to see the old behavior kept around as an option, or
>>> as an
>>> alternative/additional, a mode for it to behave like rpm/dpkg, and
>>> just fail
>>> verbosely if you don't have the dependencies already.
>> It will fail upon require.
>>>>> Would patches for any of this kind of stuff be accepted? (as non-
>>> defaulted
>>> options, of course)
>> a package managing tool should never produce an inconsistent state. and
> missing dependencies are an inconsistent state. other package managers
> require a --force to break the system.
>> i would call the flag --dependencies=[ask|ignore]. the --ignore-dependencies
> could be dropped.
The CPAN shell (Perl) does ask|ignore|follow.
> another improvement in that area would that it should list all
> dependencies at once and ask "do you want to install those 10 other gems
> to satisfy the dependencies?" that way you wouldnt have to say "y" 10
> times as it was in the past. maybe if you move to a single question for
> all dependencies, it would be ok to revert to the old behavior of asking
> if a gem needs more gems.
That would be the 'follow' option above. If such a thing doesn't already
exist, I'll hack on it this weekend and see what I can come up with.
Regards,
Dan